DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Prior art of Record
The prior art made of record in this office action shall be referred to as follows;
U.S. 2009/0072506 Jang et al. (‘Jang hereafter), App 12/205091,
U.S. 2017/0253097 Steiner et al. (‘Steiner hereafter), App 15/057699,
U.S. 5,119,663 Guy H. Bottger (‘Bottger hereafter), Filed 01/11/1991
U.S. 2010/0276902 Shimada et al. (‘Shimada hereafter), App 12/769899,
U.S. 2013/0213528 Hirawatari et al. (‘Hirawatari hereafter), App 13/882470,
U.S. 2015/0128673 Calahan et al. (‘Calahan hereafter), App 14/522730,
The above references will be referred to hereafter by the names or numbers indicated above.
Claim status:
Claims 6 - 26 are currently being examined.
Claims 1 – 5 Claims have been canceled.
Claims 13 – 26 are withdrawn because they are directed to a different invention.
No Claims are allowed or objected to for allowable subject matter.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 13 – 26 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: Claim 13 recites: “producing a blank by extruding a solid cylindrical slug in an extrusion tool comprising a die and a punch,” and claim 26 recites: “method comprising: producing a blank by cold-extruding a solid cylindrical slug in an extrusion tool comprising a die and a punch.” A “cylindrical slug,” was not previously claimed.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 13 – 26 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 6 – 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 6 – 12 require “impact extrusion.” ‘Calahan Para 0023 teaches a definition of the term “impact extrusion process.” It is noted that the definition requires the rate of increase of the temperatures of the extruder punch and the extruder forming die to increase so fast that the high temperature thresholds will be exceeded. The disclosure does not mention the term “impact extrusion,” nor does the disclosure suggest any rapid, quick punching, pressing, or extruding.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “impact extrusion” in claims 6 – 12 is used by the claim to mean “,” while the accepted meaning is “rapid, quick punching, pressing, or extruding process” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation of “impact extrusion” as such, it is understood that since Applicant has no support for “impact extrusion,” Examiner maintains their previous rejection for claims 6 & 7.
Claim(s) 6 & 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. 2017/0253097 Steiner et al. (‘Steiner hereafter).
Regarding Claim 6, ‘Steiner discloses all the claim limitations including: A method for manufacturing a suspension link (‘Steiner, Abst “A suspension linkage for a motor vehicle includes an extruded body having a first wall and a longitudinal length. An extruded feature is disposed on the first wall of the extruded body and extends along the longitudinal length. The extruded feature has a cross-sectional profile configured to control a flexural rigidity of the suspension linkage.”)
having an elongated base body (‘Steiner, Para 0019, “FIG. 1 is a front perspective view of an extruded suspension linkage according to the principles of the present invention; shows #10 (extruded suspension linkage) as an elongated body) and having a connection at each of two ends (‘Steiner, FIG. 1, shows #10 (extruded suspension linkage) having #30, #32, #34, #36 (mounting holes) at one end and #26 & #28 at the other end),
the method comprising: producing a blank by extrusion (‘Steiner, Para 0025, “With reference to FIGS. 1 and 2, an extruded suspension linkage is generally indicated by reference number 10. The extruded suspension linkage 10 may be configured as an upper or lower control arm, a tension linkage, a longitudinal linkage, a transverse linkage, a forward or rear spring arm, etc. The extruded suspension linkage 10 generally includes a body 12. The body 12 is formed from an extruded metal or alloy and then subjected to post-processing to produce particular features which will be described below. In one example, the body 12 is generally formed from extruded aluminum.”), the blank having the elongated base body (‘Steiner, #10 (extruded suspension linkage)) and the connections in raw form (‘Steiner, FIG. 1, shows connections at both ends,
Examiner understands “raw form” to be before product is completely finished being manufactured); and bending the blank into a curved shape (‘Steiner, Para 0028, “The body 12 may be bent or curved in post-processing so that one or more of the walls 14, 16, 18, 20 may be concave and an opposite wall is convex. In the example provided, the body 12 is bent such that an outer surface 40 of the body 12 is concave along the top wall 14 while the outer surface 40 is convex along the bottom wall 16.”).
Regarding Claim 7, ‘Steiner discloses all the claim limitations including: forming the connection on the blank after the extrusion (‘Steiner, Para 0027, “The first end portion 22 is configured to be attached to a component of a suspension unit (not shown) and includes first and second holes 26, 28 formed in the first and second side walls 18, 20, respectively. The first and second holes 26, 28 may be cut or punched into the body 12 during post-processing. The second end portion 24 is configured to be attached to a body frame (not shown) of a motor vehicle and includes mounting holes 30 and 32 formed in the first side wall 20, mounting holes 34 and 36 formed in the second side wall 22, and “v” shaped slots 38, 39 formed in the top and bottom walls 14, 16, respectively. It should be appreciated that the body 12 may include additional features to accommodate particular installation configurations.”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation of “impact extrusion” as such, it is understood that since Applicant has no support for “impact extrusion,” Examiner maintains their previous rejection for claims 6 8 - 12.
Claim 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2009/0072506 Jang et al. (‘Jang hereafter), and in view of U.S. 2017/0253097 Steiner et al. (‘Steiner hereafter).
Regarding Claim[s] 6, ‘Jang discloses all the claim limitations including: A method for manufacturing a suspension link (‘Jang, Para 0026, “Referring to FIG. 1 showing a flowchart illustrating a method of manufacturing a control arm using variable curvature extrusion according to the invention, the invention is to manufacture a control arm 5 of a suspension system by extrusion-molding an aluminum member, in which a carrier-fastening end 8 and a bush-fastening end 9 are formed at both ends to fasten an end to a carrier (to wheel) and the other end to a subframe (to car body). Further, the control arm is formed in a double structure of which a hollow extrusion profile cross section has a double-hollow closed cross section to distribute loads while a bump stop cup 10 where the lower end of a spring of the suspension system is placed is connected by cauking.”) having an elongated base body (‘Jang, Fig 1, #1 (raw control arm), #2 (control arm), #5 (control arm), and #3 (control arm) show an elongated body at different stages of production) and having a connection at each of two ends (‘Jang, Fig 1, #5 (control arm) is an in production stage shows #9 (bush-fastening end), and #8 (cutter-fastening end)),
the method comprising:
producing a blank by impact extrusion (‘Jang, (‘Jang, Fig 1, #1 (raw control arm), “Straight Extrusion” [Wingdings font/0xE0] “Curved Extrusion” [Wingdings font/0xE0] “Straight Extrusion,” Para 0026, discusses the manufacturing of a control arm using variable curvature extrusion #1), the blank having the elongated base body (1) (‘Jang, Fig 1, and the connections (2, 3) in raw form (‘Jang, Fig 1, #5 (control arm) is an in production stage shows #9 (bush-fastening end), and #8 (cutter-fastening end), Examiner understands “raw form” to be before product is completely finished being manufactured); and
Except, ‘Jang does not teach: bending the blank into a curved shape.
However, ‘Steiner teaches: Para 0016, “In yet another aspect, the extruded body includes a first end portion disposed longitudinally opposite a second end portion, wherein the first end portion is connectable to a suspension unit and the second end portion is connectable to a frame of the motor vehicle.” Para 0028, “The body 12 may be bent or curved in post-processing so that one or more of the walls 14, 16, 18, 20 may be concave and an opposite wall is convex. In the example provided, the body 12 is bent such that an outer surface 40 of the body 12 is concave along the top wall 14 while the outer surface 40 is convex along the bottom wall 16.”
Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide ‘Jang with a method of bending the extruded part as taught by ‘Steiner in order to provide a curved part (‘Steiner Para 0028).
Claim 8 & 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2017/0253097 Steiner et al. (‘Steiner hereafter) and in view of U.S. 5,119,663 Guy H. Bottger (‘Bottger hereafter).
Regarding Claim 8, ‘Steiner discloses all the claim limitations except is silent regarding: the connection at one of the two ends is produced during impact extrusion.
However, ‘Bottger, does teach, Col. 1, ln 55 – Col. 2, ln 5, “The cross or tripod of the universal joint comprises a main body with a plurality of trunnions which may be provided with lubrication holes in their ends. The configuration of the spider is formed by hot or warm forging. The trunnions are thereafter finished through cold extrusion to their desired shape. The lubrication holes are formed during extrusion of the trunnions. As a result, the trunnions are provided with the necessary size, shape and surface finish while maintaining the grain flow of the part. Further, by initially forging the part, greater variations in the configuration of the hub may be attained to meet specific requirements of individual manufacturers The alignment of the trunnions is also improved through the method and apparatus of the present invention resulting in improved mechanical
qualities of the overall assembly. The crosspieces obtained by this process do not require further tooling or shaping before final thermal treatment.”)
Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide ‘Steiner with connections at two ends during extrusion as taught by ‘Botger in order to provide a reduction is additional machining steps to save cost (‘Botger, Col. 1, ln 27 – 31).
Regarding Claim[s] 11, ‘Jang & ‘Botger discloses all the claim limitations including: extrusion is a cold impact extrusion (‘Botger, Col. 1, ln 36 – 43. “Uniform surfaces and die volumes must be maintained since it is difficult to fill corners and remote portions of the die under the uniform material flow during extrusion. Cold extrusion requires that the hub of the crosspiece be symmetrical so as to allow full extrusion of the trunnions forming the crosspiece or tripod. Although additional machining and therefore waste of materials is eliminated, extrusion of the complete part is still more expensive than forging the component. Moreover, the grain flow of the extruded part is highly distorted although the grain is not interrupted.”
Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide ‘Steiner with cold extrusion as taught by ‘Botger in order to provide a process that eliminates waste materials and additional machining (‘Botger, Col. 1, ln 36 – 43).
Claim 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2009/0072506 Jang et al. (‘Jang hereafter), and in view of U.S. 2017/0253097 Steiner et al. (‘Steiner hereafter), and in further view of U.S. 2010/0276902 Shimada et al. (‘Shimada hereafter).
Regarding Claim[s] 9, ‘Jang discloses all the claim limitations except is silent regarding: machining the connection at each of the two ends after bending.
However, ‘Shimada does teach: machining the connection (2, 3) at each of the two ends after bending. (‘Shimada, Para 0070, “By suitably adjusting the starting temperature of water cooling by the water cooling device 6 and the cooling rate, it is possible to quench all or a portion of the cooled portion of the parts material made by metal 1-1. As a result, the strength of all or a portion of the parts material made by metal 1-1 can be greatly increased to at least 1500 MPa, for example, or the strength of portions which undergo machining such as punching after bending (such as ball joint support portions and wheel hub installation portions) can be decreased to around 600 MPa, for example, whereby the ability to undergo mechanical working can be guaranteed.”)
Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide ‘Jang with machining the connections after bending as taught by ‘Shimada in order to provide a guaranteed placement of the holes (‘Shimada, Para 0070).
Regarding Claim[s] 12, ‘Jang & ‘Shimada discloses all the claim limitations except is silent the blank is produced by forward impact extrusion (‘Shimada, Para 0072, “A movable roller die 4 is a movable support means for supporting the parts material made by metal 1-1 while moving it. A pair of movable rolls 4a, 4a of the movable roller die 4 move two-dimensionally in a plane which is roughly parallel to at least a pair of long sides 12, 13 of the parts material made by metal 1-1 in a region downstream of the third position C in the feed direction of the parts material made by metal 1-1. As a result, a bending moment is applied to the heated portion of the parts material made by metal 1-1.” Teaches a moving roller die. Examiner understands a forward extrusion to be that of a moving die).
Claim 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2017/0253097 Steiner et al. (‘Steiner hereafter) and in view of U.S. 2013/0213528 Hirawatari et al. (‘Hirawatari hereafter).
Regarding Claim[s] 10, ‘Steiner discloses all the claim limitations except is silent regarding: comprising subjecting the blank to heat treatment after the impact extrusion.
However, ‘Hirawatari does teach: comprising subjecting the blank to heat treatment after the impact extrusion (‘Hirawatari, Para 0066, ”It is to be noted that in the heat treatment (T6 treatment), it is preferred that the solution heat treatment after plastic working (extrusion processing)”).
Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide ‘Steiner with a heat treatment afcter extrusion as taught by ‘Hirawatari in order to provide a hardening processes (‘Hirawatari, Para 0065).
Conclusion
Examiner encourages Applicant to fill out and submit form PTO-SB-439 to allow internet communications in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 (MPEP 02.03). Should the need arise to perfect applicant-proposed or examiner’s amendments, authorization for e-mail correspondence would have already been authorized and would save time.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAWRENCE AVERICK whose telephone number is (571)270-7565. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00AM - 3:00PM M- F ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas Hong can be reached at 571-272-0993. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LAWRENCE AVERICK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
10/06/2026
